|
|
|
|
|
Canada
|
|
Number of nuclear units connected to the grid |
Nuclear electricity generation (net TWh) |
Nuclear percentage
of total electricity supply |
|
| Canada |
20 |
88.6 |
14.7 |
| OECD America |
126 |
90.0 |
18.1 |
|
OECD TOTAL |
346 (out of 437 worldwide) |
2278.1 |
23.1 |
Domestic
There are currently 22 nuclear power reactors in Canada which are operated by public utilities and private companies in Ontario (20), Quebec (1) and New Brunswick (1).
Of the 22 reactors installed, 16 reactors are currently in full commercial operation, and they generate around 13% of Canada's electricity, over 40% in Ontario. Moreover, nine CANDU reactors are currently in operation or under construction outside of Canada. In 2002, CANDU reactors in operation in Canada and abroad performed very well. Their performance averaged 85%, slightly higher than the lifetime average performance of 83%. Table 1 gives an overview of the main nuclear power data in Canada and its provinces.
The two nuclear operators in Ontario, OPG and Bruce Power, are still pursuing their respective recovery plans to restart the laid-up units at Pickering A and Bruce A stations. Two of the eight laid-up units were brought back to service (Pickering A unit 4 and Bruce A unit 4) in the second half of 2003. A third unit (Bruce A unit 3) came on line on 1 March 2004.
Table 1. Status of Nuclear Power Plants
OPG has also undertaken planning for the return to service of the three remaining units at Pickering and it indicated that they should be brought back to service over the next few years. With respect to the other two units at Bruce A, Bruce Power has indicated that these units will be restarted if a proper business case can be made for returning them to service.
For most of this coming decade, prospects for new nuclear power plants in Canada are uncertain, even in Ontario, based on the most recent electricity market outlooks. The return to service of the remaining laid-up nuclear units and the completion of gas-fired units already under construction in Ontario should ensure adequate electricity supplies. While market prospects for new reactor sales in the near- to medium-term are not too promising, the refurbishment of existing units holds more promise. Hence, the refurbishment of existing reactors would, at least in the medium-term, avoid the replacement of nuclear generating capacity with fossil-fuelled plants.
However, for the next decade, there are better opportunities for the deployment of new nuclear generating capacity in Canada. AECL is currently working on the development of the 700 MW Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR), and is aiming at reducing the capital cost to build a reactor by up to 40%. The economics of the new reactor has been ranked highly by international experts relative to other advanced reactors and has the potential to be cost competitive with other types of power generation. The ACR technology could provide an economic replacement for existing reactors as they reach the end of their service lives, as well as for some new nuclear power plants in Canada and abroad.
The structure of the Canadian Nuclear Industry is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Canadian Nuclear Sector Organisation (end 2000)
CNDC: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission The Canadian nuclear industry consists of a mixture of private sector firms and public sector organisations at both the federal and provincial levels. The federal government provides leadership, support and a regulatory framework for the nuclear industry through AECL and CNSC, two federal government agencies which report to the Canadian Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. The Minister relies directly on the Department of Natural Resources for policy advice on nuclear matters including issues pertaining to AECL and the CNSC. The CNSC regulates the safety and security aspects of nuclear materials and facilities in Canada and participates, on behalf of Canada, in international measures of control.
AECL has both a public and commercial mandate. It has overall responsibility for Canada's nuclear research and development programme as well as the Canadian reactor design (CANDU), engineering and marketing programme. Canada also has an indigenous nuclear power industry established around CANDU reactor technology. Private sector firms, which undertake the manufacturing of CANDU components and the engineering and project management work for reactors both inside and outside of Canada, act as subcontractors to AECL.
Through Cameco Corporation and its predecessors, both the federal and Saskatchewan governments have played a major role in Canada's uranium industry in the past. However, their role essentially ended on February 14, 2002, when the Government of Saskatchewan sold its remaining 9% ownership in Cameco.
The Canadian nuclear industry covers all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle. The industry's activities are focused on the design, engineering, construction and servicing of CANDU reactors in Canada and abroad; on fuel and component manufacturing; and, on the mining, milling, refining and conversion of uranium. The most significant members of the industry are AECL, the CNSC, provincial utilities, and private sector firms involved in equipment manufacturing, engineering and the mix of private and government (both domestic and foreign) firms involved in uranium production. In addition, there are about 125 hospitals and universities across Canada performing isotope studies in research and/or nuclear medicine.
AECL is responsible for engineering, nuclear design, business management, and construction of CANDU reactors in Canada and abroad. It leads the marketing and sales initiatives on behalf of Canada's nuclear industry. It also manages contracts for building the reactors and servicing them. AECL's CANDU operations are based in Mississauga and Chalk River, Ontario; and Montreal, Quebec. It also maintains offices around the world.
The industry is not vertically integrated. There are over 150 companies that supply products and/or services to AECL and the utilities. 58% of these firms are located in Ontario, 14% in Alberta and 12% in Quebec. The remaining provinces have 16% of the suppliers to the nuclear industry. 56% of the nuclear industry supplier companies are in the manufacturing sector, 20% are in engineering and design and 16% in research and development. In 2002, annual employment, direct and indirect, associated with the nuclear industry in Canada was over 30,000.
Manufacturing: Because of the cyclical nature of the nuclear industry, most of the firms are also active suppliers to other industries.
Engineering: A number of Canadian engineering consulting firms, working closely with AECL, assume the conventional design responsibilities as well as project and construction management and other services, which are often required during plant construction.
Operation and maintenance: A number of private sector suppliers work as sub-contractors for provincial utilities for some of the operation and maintenance work.
Construction: This business is cyclical in nature and the impact on employment can be significant (for example, the construction of a CANDU 6 requires 15,000 person-years over the construction period of 4-5 years). The construction of reactors is undertaken by general construction contractors.
Offshore markets have been the major component of the CANDU business during the past decade and indications are that this situation might continue for some time.
AECL assisted India in the construction of two 200 MW Douglas Point-type reactors (RAPS 1 and RAPS 2). An agreement was signed with India in 1963 to build RAPS 1 and RAPS 1 was completed in 1973. Assistance for the construction of RAPS 2 was terminated following India's explosion of a "peaceful nuclear device" in 1974 although India eventually completed RAPS 2 in 1981 without Canadian involvement. Canada does not have a nuclear co-operation agreement with India and therefore cannot conduct nuclear trade with India.
In 1964, CGE entered into an agreement with Pakistan to supply a 120 MW CANDU-type reactor (KANUPP). The plant entered commercial operation in 1972. As Pakistan did not agree to meet the requirements of Canada's 1974 non-proliferation policy, Canada terminated nuclear co-operation with Pakistan. Canada does not have a Nuclear Co-operation Agreement in place with Pakistan although some "limited" safety assistance is currently being provided through the CANDU Owners Group.
AECL developed the CANDU 6 reactor design and was successful in selling four of these in the early to mid-1970s: Gentilly-2 (Hydro-Quebec, 1973), Point Lepreau (New Brunswick, 1974), Cordoba (Argentina, 1973) and Wolsong (South Korea, 1976). All four of these units went into service in the early 1980s. In 1979, an agreement was signed with Romania to build a multi-unit 650 MWe CANDU station at Cernavoda. The first reactor, Cernavoda 1, was completed and went into commercial operation in 1996.
In the 1990s, AECL sold an additional CANDU 6 unit to South Korea and a further two units in 1992. In 1996, AECL entered the Chinese market by selling two CANDU 6 reactors to the China National Nuclear Corporation. In 2002, an agreement was reached with Romania to complete the second unit at the Cernavoda nuclear station.
Currently, there are nine CANDU reactors of the CANDU-6 design in operation or under construction outside of Canada. There are four CANDU reactors in operation in South Korea, two in China, one in Argentina and one in Romania. A second CANDU reactor is under construction in Romania.
The first two CANDU 6 units in Qinshan, China reached full commercial operation in 2002-2003. The completion of the two units was ahead of schedule and on budget. Construction to complete the second CANDU 6 reactor in Romania resumed in early 2003 and it is expected to be completed in 2006.
As noted earlier, all Canadian electric utilities are under provincial jurisdiction and are responsible for building, operating and maintaining provincial power facilities, including nuclear facilities. The utilities operating nuclear facilities, are: OPG; Bruce Power; Hydro-Québec; and New Brunswick Power. Operation and maintenance of reactors provides the largest single source of jobs in the nuclear industry. Private sector suppliers work as sub-contractors for utilities for some of this work.
The utilities are members of the CANDU Owners Group (COG) and share in funding the industry's research and development effort. COG was formed in mid-1984 by the Canadian utilities which own CANDU reactors and AECL. COG was set up to promote closer co-operation among the nuclear utilities in matters relating to plant operations and maintenance and to foster co-operative development programmes leading to improved plant performance.
The federal government has funded the research and development programme of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited since AECL was first established in 1952. As part of its overall review of federal programmes in 1995-96, the Department of Natural Resources reviewed the structure and funding of the AECL research and development programme in co-operation with other key departments and AECL. As a result of the review, federal funding was reduced to $100 Million per annum and a strategic decision was taken to focus AECL's research and development efforts on CANDU-related research and development and close the AECL laboratories at Whiteshell. The government's objective was to maintain a viable research and development programme at reduced cost to the federal government. AECL receives commercial revenues from its customers and also receives government appropriations for its nuclear research and development programme.
AECL is responsible for Canada's nuclear research and development programme, which includes activities in support of CANDU technology as well as basic science activities to support AECL's applied programmes in the nuclear, biological and material sciences. AECL's internationally acclaimed research centre at Chalk River, Ontario plays a critical role in the development of the CANDU reactor, safety and environmental protection, nuclear medicine, health sciences, in nuclear fuel waste management and the basic sciences that spawn technological advances in these areas.
Nuclear research and development in Canada began in the 1940s as a responsibility of the federal government. The Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) were originally established as a part of the National Research Council's wartime research effort. Early CRL pursuits were in the "new" sciences at the time - nuclear physics, nuclear chemistry and radiation biology - and the creation of the National Research Experimental (NRX) reactor.
The NRX facility and the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor (brought on stream a decade later) were critical to CRL's early programmes of basic science and isotope production as well as to the development of the CANDU reactor system. CRL supported federal government initiatives to develop national radiological health and safety regulations and to contribute to international efforts to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The CANDU nuclear energy system is unique in concept among nuclear systems in the world. This is because the Canadian research reactors were designed to use natural (rather than enriched) uranium and heavy (rather than light) water. Consequently, the required research and development support is unique and cannot be derived from research results in other countries. Therefore, a continuing CANDU research and development programme is necessary to support existing and future plants, both at home and abroad.
Although responsibility for the design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants has generally been shared between AECL, the nuclear power utilities and private companies, most of the related research and development activities have remained in the AECL laboratories. Such activities have included the development of CANDU design methods, experimental verification of CANDU reactor components and design characteristics, as well as detailed safety analyses. Work continues on improved durability and reliability of CANDU components, and flexibility of fuel cycles. Significant research in basic and applied science, not necessarily related to nuclear energy, has also been conducted in these laboratories.
The continuing design and development programme for pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWR) in Canada are primarily aimed at reducing plant costs through plant optimisation and simplification and at an evolutionary enhancement of plant performance and safety. Two new 728 MW(e) CANDU-6 units with improvements over earlier versions of this model have been successfully constructed under budget and ahead of schedule in Qinshan, China. AECL is developing its next generation Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR) to incorporate further evolutionary improvements to enhance safety, improve efficiency and to reduce construction times and costs. New features include smaller core size, evolutionary fuel-bundle design using slightly enriched uranium and the use of light water as coolant. The ACR is undergoing pre-licensing review in Canada and the United States.
A second major nuclear research and development initiative that Canada is involved in is Generation IV. AECL has also the lead on the Generation IV International Forum's (GIF) Super Critical Water-Cooled Reactor (SCWR) Initiative. Canada, through its participation in GIF, has committed to support the Forum in its search for advanced reactor systems to meet the energy needs of the future (~2030).
Private and public organisations in Canada's nuclear programme are active in bilateral co-operative work in many countries often under the umbrella of a Memorandum of Understanding between parties. Co-operative work is carried out with countries with which Canada has established formal nuclear relations under a Nuclear Co-operation Agreement. Canadian public and private sector firms are also active in a variety of multilateral activities carried out in a number of international nuclear fora including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), OECD/NEA and the G-7 Nuclear Safety Working Group, etc.
For additional information on national laws and regulations concerning nuclear power please see the chapter on Canada in the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency's Analytical Study of Nuclear Legislation in OECD countries.
On 31 May 2000, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) was created as the successor to the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB), which had served as the regulator of Canada's nuclear industry for more than 50 years. The Commission's creation followed the coming into force of the Nuclear Safety and Control (NSC) act and its regulations. The NSC act represented the first major overhaul of legislation governing Canada's nuclear regulatory regime since the AECB was established in 1946. It established a seven-member tribunal (the Commission) to regulate the nuclear industry, and authorised the Commission to hire technical and support staff. The Commission reports to parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources.
The CNSC's mission is to regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment and to respect Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Under the NSC act, the CNSC's mandate involves four major areas:
The canadian regulatory system is designed to protect people and the environment from the risks associated with the development and use of nuclear energy and nuclear substances. Companies, medical or academic institutions wishing to operate nuclear facilities or use nuclear substances for industrial, medical or academic purposes must first obtain a licence from the CNSC. It is a fundamental tenet of Canada's regulatory regime that licensees are primarily responsible for safety. The CNSC's role is to ensure that the applicants live up to their responsibility. The onus is therefore on the applicant or the holder of the license to justify the selection of a site, design, method of construction, and mode of operation of a facility. When issuing a licence, the CNSC must be satisfied that the companies have taken adequate measures to protect health and safety, the environment, security and to respect international commitments, and that the companies are qualified to carry out the licensed activities. Licensing matters for major facilities are carried out in public hearings by the seven-member tribunal. This is one of the most visible functions of the CNSC in the regulation of the nuclear industry.
The CNSC controls the import and export of nuclear materials, nuclear technology and equipment that might be used to develop nuclear weapons (including so-called "dual use items"). CNSC staff also plays an important role in international activities aimed at the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. As well, the CNSC participates in IAEA activities and ensures compliance with Canada's Nuclear Non-Proliferation policy and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
CNSC staff inspects licensed activities, enforces compliance with regulations, and develops safety standards. Standards for radiological protection have been developed over the years at both national and international levels. The basis for the Canadian regulatory radiation dose limits originates from the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
The main national laws in Canada regarding nuclear power are:
This act, which came into force in 1976, establishes liability for third-party injury and damage arising from nuclear accidents and provides for a well-defined compensation system for victims. The NL act is modelled closely after the Vienna and Paris nuclear third-party liability conventions. The act applies to nuclear facilities that are designated by the CNSC. These are generally nuclear reactors, fuel fabrication facilities, or facilities for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. The NL act also includes provisions for Canada to enter into reciprocity agreements with any country that provides satisfactory arrangements for compensation. Currently, the only such reciprocity arrangement is between the United States and Canada. Although the basic principles underlying the NL act remain valid, the act is almost thirty years old, and needs updating to address issues that have become evident over the years, and to keep pace with international trends. The federal government has conducted a comprehensive review of the NL act, and expects to introduce new legislation sometime in 2004;
This act establishes in legislation the process and the obligations of federal departments and agencies for the conduct of environmental assessments of public or private projects involving the federal government. In 2000, a five-year review of the operation and provisions of the CEA act was undertaken by the Minister of Environment. A multi-stakeholder consultation was held on a national scale to determine ways to improve the act. A revised CEA act, incorporating the results of the five-year review, came into force in October 2003;
That entered into force in 2003 and has been amended in 2003. This act replaced the Atomic Energy Control Act of 1985;
This act requires nuclear utilities to form a waste management organisation whose mandate is to propose to the government approaches for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste, and to implement the approach that is selected by the government. The NFW act also requires the utilities and AECL to establish trust funds to finance the implementation of the selected long-term nuclear fuel waste management approach. The NFW act entered into force on November 15, 2002; and the
The federal government's view is that, on balance, Canada is fortunate to have a variety of energy resource options at its disposal and that it is necessary to continue to develop a mixture of energy sources. Within the supply portfolio there is an important role for nuclear energy as long as it is responsibly managed and strictly regulated.
The provinces have overall responsibility for the development and management of their nuclear supply system, including nuclear power stations. Although the three provinces with nuclear facilities do not have any plans to build additional nuclear plants, they are undertaking or planning to undertake refurbishment programmes to ensure long-term supply from their nuclear assets. The Ontario government, which has made a significant investment in developing a nuclear energy infrastructure, recognises that nuclear energy will remain a very important component of the supply mix and that it represents a major technical achievement.
The two nuclear operators in Ontario, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and Bruce Power, are making significant progress in their respective recovery plan to restart the four laid-up units at both Pickering A and Bruce A stations.
On 25 September 2003, OPG announced the return to service of Pickering A unit 4 to the Ontario electricity market. Since then, OPG has turned its attention to the return to service of the other three laid-up units. Although OPG has not indicated specific dates for the return to service of the remaining three units, it is expected that they should be brought back to service over the next few years.
Bruce Power is also proceeding with its refurbishment programme to restart the Bruce A units. In October 2003, Bruce Power announced that Bruce A unit 4 was reconnected to the provincial electricity grid. Bruce Power also brought unit 3 into service in early 2004. Together, the two Bruce A units added 1,500 MW of electricity to the Ontario grid. With respect to the other two units at Bruce A, Bruce Power indicated that these units will be restarted only if a proper business case can be made for returning them to service.
The New Brunswick government is in the process of restructuring the electricity market and redefining the future role of New Brunswick Power (NB Power). The Government recently announced that it will proclaim the new electricity act on 1 April 2004, which will mark the beginning of a competitive electricity market in New Brunswick. NB Power will also be reorganized into five distinct units as a result of the new act.
The nuclear reactor at the Point Lepreau station is approaching the point where a decision needs to be made as to whether it should be refurbished or begin to prepare for decommissioning. NB Power and AECL have begun a refurbishment assessment programme to determine the technical scope for refurbishment. Following the assessment, the costs and benefits of refurbishment will be compared with other development opportunities to determine the most viable option for NB Power.
A final decision on the project has not yet been made, but a decision is expected sometime in 2004. Concurrently, the New Brunswick Government is exploring the potential for private sector involvement in the project. If the refurbishment programme goes ahead, the reactor's life will be extended in 2008 for an additional 25 years.
The Gentilly 2 nuclear reactor is also approaching the point in time where a decision needs to be made, as it went into operation at about the same time as the Point Lepreau station. Hydro-Quebec is currently conducting some studies, as well as some public consultations. A decision by the Hydro-Quebec Board of Directors is not expected before 2005. If approved, the refurbishment of Gentilly 2 is expected to take place in 2009 and 2010.
As a result of the opening of the market in Ontario, OPG has been able to divest some of its nuclear assets. It has leased its 8 units at the Bruce station to Bruce Power, now a Canadian consortium. In December 2002, British Energy decided to relinquish its entire stake (82%) in the Bruce nuclear station to a Canadian consortium. British Energy's financial difficulties and the change in the structure of the consortium have had little impact on the operations at the Bruce plant.
From a regulatory perspective, the federal government clarified, in 2002, a section of the Nuclear Safety and Control act (Section 46-3) which was an impediment for private sector lending to the nuclear industry. The nuclear sector can now compete for project financing on an equal footing with other sectors. This amendment has contributed to the successful change in ownership of the Bruce Power to a Canadian consortium.
Canada is the world's leading producer and exporter of uranium, with output of some 11 607 tU in 2002 representing about 32% of total world production. In 2002, all uranium produced came from higher-grade, lower-cost production centres at Key Lake, Rabbit Lake, Cluff Lake, McClean Lake and McArthur River in Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin. Canada's largest uranium producer, Cameco Corporation, also operates Canada's only uranium refining and conversion facilities at Blind River and Port Hope, Ontario respectively. Table 2 contains the uranium data for Canada. Fuel Fabrication in Canada is carried out by two companies, which produce fuel assemblies for the CANDU reactor. There are no uranium enrichment and reprocessing facilities in Canada.
The key companies involved in the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada are Cameco Corporation; COGEMA Resources Inc. (uranium mining and milling); Cameco (refining and conversion); and General Electric Canada Inc. and Zircatec Precision Industries Inc. (fuel fabrication).
Table 2. Canadian Uranium Data
|
|
2002 |
2001 |
2000 |
1999 |
1998 |
|
Known Uranium resources recoverable from mineable ore (1,000 tU as of January 1)* |
452 |
437 |
417 |
433 |
419 |
Total primary production (tU) |
11 607 |
12 522 |
10 683 |
8 214 |
10 922 |
|
By-product** production (tU) [not included above] |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total producer shipments (tU) |
13 042 p |
12 922 p |
9 921 |
10 157 |
9 984 |
|
Value of shipments ($C millions) |
600 p |
600 p |
485 |
500 |
500 |
|
Average price for deliveries under export contracts ($C/kgU) / ($US/lb U3O8) |
NA |
46.60/11.60 |
47.70/12.40 |
49.10/12.70 |
51.10/13.30 |
|
Exports of Uranium of Canadian origin (tU) |
11 534 |
10 029 |
10 966 |
7 146 |
8 274 |
|
Uranium exploration expenditures ($C millions) |
35 |
25 |
46 |
49 |
60 |
*Resources at prices of $150/kgU or less.
**Uranium from refinery/conversion facility by-products recovered at Elliot Lake. With the closure of Rio Algom's Stanleigh operation in mid-1996, by-products from Cameco's refinery/conversion facilities in Ontario are no longer processed in Canada.
p - provisional
N/A - Not available at this time. Commencing in 2002, Natural Resources Canada decided to suspend the publication of the Average Price of Deliveries under Export Contracts for uranium for a period of three to five years, pending a policy review and assessment of market conditions. The Price was designed to reflect the international selling price for Canadian uranium. However, the international trend in recent years toward "open-origin" uranium sales contracts has made it increasingly difficult to isolate a figure applicable only to Canadian uranium. Natural Resources Canada may resume publication of pricing information in the future, if changed market conditions allow it to calculate an average price that is clearly applicable to Canadian uranium.
In 2004, overall Canadian uranium exploration and development expenditures amounted to CAD 44 million, while uranium exploration and surface development drilling totalled 119 000 m, compared to the 2003 total of 74 000 m. Over 80% of the combined exploration and surface development drilling in 2003 and 2004 took place in Saskatchewan.
The top three operators, accounting for a significant proportion of the CAD 44 million expended in 2004 were Cameco Corporation, COGEMA Resources Inc. (CRI) and UEX Corporation. Expenditures by AREVA subsidiary CRI include those of Urangesellschaft Canada Limited.
Since the last Elliot Lake production facility closed in 1996, all active uranium production centres are located in northern Saskatchewan. Current Canadian uranium production remains below full production capability. In 2004, production reached a total of 11 597 tU, as increased McArthur River production exceeded the decline caused by the closure of Cluff Lake and reduced Rabbit Lake production. In 2005, production was expected to remain steady.
Cameco Corporation is the operator of the McArthur River mine, a Cameco (70%), CRI (30%) joint venture. Production at this, the world’s largest uranium mine, reached 5 751 tU and 7 035 tU in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
The Key Lake mill is a Cameco (83%) and CRI (17%) joint venture operated by Cameco. Although mining was completed in 1997, the mill maintained its standing as the world’s largest uranium production centre by producing 5 830 tU and 7 200 tU in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
The McClean Lake production centre, operated by CRI, is a joint venture between CRI (70%), Denison Mines Ltd. (22.5%), and OURD (Canada) Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of Overseas Uranium Resources Development Corporation of Japan (7.5%). Production in 2003 and 2004 amounted to 2 318 tU and 2 310 tU, respectively.
The Rabbit Lake production centre, wholly-owned and operated by Cameco, produced 2 280 tU and 2 087 tU in 2003 and 2004, respectively. The slight decline in 2004 production is the result of difficult mining conditions encountered that reduced mill feed.
Underground and surface drilling at the Eagle Point mine continued in 2005. This underground mine is the only mine at Rabbit Lake that remains in production.
The Cigar Lake mine is a Cameco (50.025%), CRI (37.1%), Idemitsu (7.875%) and TEPCO (5%) joint venture operated by Cameco. On July 7, 2004, the CNSC issued a license for the construction of specific surface facilities at Cigar Lake. On December 20, 2004, the CNSC issued a license for the construction of the remaining mining and support facilities at the site and on December 21, 2004, the Cigar Lake joint venture partners announced a decision to proceed immediately with construction of the mine.
These are extracts from Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand, which will be available from the OECD online bookshop shortly.
Most nuclear projects undergo a federal environmental assessment process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) act. Recent developments include:
The Federal Court of Canada issued an order on 23 September 2002, that quashed a 1999 McClean Lake operating licence on the grounds that an environmental assessment (EA) under the CEA act had not been conducted prior to issuing the licence. An appeal court subsequently ordered the decision stayed pending the disposition of the appeal, which was heard in June 2004. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the McClean Lake operating licence, and a subsequent challenge to this ruling was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada on 24 March 2005.
The Federal Court of Canada decision was not related to the environmental performance of the facility, but was based upon the interpretation of the transitional provision of the CEA act. The entire McClean Lake operation was reviewed by an environmental review panel pursuant to regulatory requirements that preceded the CEA act.
On 22 April 2003, CRI initiated a "mitigative" EA, triggered by a licence amendment request to the CNSC. On 29 August 2003, guidelines for the screening were approved by the CNSC and on 30 October 2003, the project "Continuation of Ore Processing at the McClean Lake Operation" was announced. The EA will examine the development, mining and milling of the Sue E ore reserves and the management of waste rock and tailings and the development of mine rock storage areas.
An application by Cameco for a Cigar Lake construction licence, in light of the McClean Lake court decision, caused the CNSC to require Cameco to initiate a EA entitled "Construction and operation of the Cigar Lake uranium mine" on 8 January 2003. On 29 August 2003, the CNSC approved guidelines for this EA.
CRI began an EA under the CEA act of its plan to close and decommission the Cluff Lake operation in April 1999. An EA that outlines, among other issues, the decommissioning plan as well as options and mitigation measures, has been submitted to the CNSC for review. Development of this document has already involved public consultation, and additional public consultation will take place once the EA is finalised.
An EA that addresses the disposition of waste rock from the Cigar Lake mine was initiated on 11 October 1999, and the first draft was completed August 2001. Proponents addressed comments raised by federal and provincial authorities on this draft and re-submitted a revised document. Following a public hearing on 25 June 2003, the CNSC announced that the EA screening report was complete and met all of the applicable requirements of the CEAA.
In July 1996, the government announced a Policy Framework for Radioactive Waste. The Framework lays out the ground rules and sets the stage for the further development of institutional and financial arrangements to implement disposal of radioactive waste in a safe, environmentally sound, comprehensive, cost-effective and integrated manner. The Policy Framework specifies that the federal government has the responsibility to develop policy, to regulate, and to oversee radioactive waste producers and owners in order that they meet their operational and funding responsibilities in accordance with approved disposal plans. The Framework recognises that there will be variations in approach in arrangements for the different waste types in Canada, i.e. nuclear fuel waste; low-level radioactive waste and uranium mine and mill tailings.
In April 2001, consistent with the Policy Framework for Radioactive Waste, the government introduced new legislation for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. The Nuclear Fuel Waste (NFW) act is the culmination of many years of federal research, environmental assessments and discussions with stakeholders, including the nuclear industry, provinces and the public. The NFW act entered into force on November 15, 2002.
The NFW act requires nuclear utilities to form a waste management organisation whose mandate is to propose to the government approaches for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste, and to implement the approach that is selected by the Government. The NFW act also requires the utilities and AECL to establish trust funds to finance the implementation of the selected long-term nuclear fuel waste management approach.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was established by the nuclear utilities in the fall of 2002. Its president, Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell, has held a number of senior posts within government and non-government organisations, and had been active in environment-related programs.
As required by the NFW act, in November 2005 NWMO submitted to the Government a study entitled 'Choosing a Way Forward', setting out its proposed approaches for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste, and its recommendation on which proposed approach should be adopted. This study, now completed, was required by the NFW act to include approaches based on both storage (on-site or centralised) and disposal. In carrying out this study, the NWMO was required to consult with the general public on each of the proposed approaches.
The government will now select one of the approaches for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste from among those set out in the NWMO's Choosing a Way Forward study, and the NWMO will then be required to implement the selected approach. This implementation will be funded through monies deposited in trust funds set up by the utilities and AECL in accordance with requirements in the NFW act.
The major nuclear utility in Canada, OPG, produces about 70% of the annual volume of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) in Canada. To date, there has been no pressing need in OPG for early disposal; volumes are small and the waste is being safely stored on an interim basis. However, in its 1992 plan for these wastes, the utility fully recognised that, in the longer term, disposal is a necessary step in responsible waste management, so that future generations are not burdened with managing this waste. OPG is currently assessing possible options for the long-term management of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes. The year 2015 is considered an achievable target date for bringing a long-term management facility into service.
The other major ongoing producer of low-level radioactive waste, AECL, had discussions with the CNSC to license a prototype below-ground concrete vault known as Intrusion-Resistant Underground Structure (IRUS) for relatively short-lived waste. The future application of IRUS technology is currently being reassessed by AECL. Until this, or another disposal facility is available, AECL will continue to store its on-going LLW in-ground and above-ground structures.
The bulk of Canada's historic low-level radioactive waste is located in the southern Ontario communities of Port Hope and Clarington. These wastes, amounting to roughly one million cubic metres, relate to the historic operations of a radium and uranium refinery in the municipality of Port Hope. In March 2001, the government and the local municipalities where the wastes are located entered into an agreement for the long-term management of these wastes. The project will involve the clean-up of the wastes and long-term management in newly constructed above-ground mounds in the local communities. The $260 million project will take roughly ten years to complete. The first phase of the project is an environmental assessment and regulatory review that is expected to last five years. The clean-up, waste facility construction, and waste emplacement would take place in the following five years.
Uranium ore was mined in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s at Port Radium on Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories by the uranium mining company Eldorado. It was transported by barge to Fort McMurray in northern Alberta, where the cargo was put on rail and transported to southern Ontario for processing. Cargo spills occurred at barge transfer points. Although the radiological impact of the contaminated sites discovered in 1991 is minimal, the federal government nevertheless decided to conduct a phased project involving clean-up activities based on sound waste disposal principles. The action has been undertaken annually since 1991 in the areas of site characterisation, clean up, and monitoring activities. This project is on-going.
In Canada, about 225 million tonnes of uranium mine and mill tailings have been generated since the mid-1950s. These comprise about two percent of all mine and mill tailings in the country. Most of the existing uranium tailings are located in the provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan. Of the total of twenty-four tailings sites in Canada, only three in Saskatchewan continue to receive waste material.
Uranium tailings are decommissioned on-site. The mining industry, in co-operation with provincial and federal governments has, over the past two decades, funded a comprehensive research programme on acid rock drainage. Technologies developed under this programme have been successfully applied to the decommissioning of uranium tailings in the provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan, in addition to other sites across Canada.
With regard to financial responsibility for decommissioning and long-term maintenance of the tailings, the CNSC requires that present-day operators provide financial assurances that decommissioning of uranium facilities will take place in a responsible and orderly manner in the short- and long-term. Where a producer or owner cannot be identified, cannot be located, or is unable to pay, responsibility for decommissioning would rest with the Canadian federal and provincial governments. In January 1996, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on cost-sharing for management of abandoned uranium mine tailings was signed between the federal and Ontario governments. The MOA recognises that present and past producers of uranium are responsible for all financial aspects of the decommissioning, and long-term maintenance of uranium mine sites, including the tailings. In the case of abandoned sites, the MOA outlines how governments will share the long-term management responsibilities and associated costs.
CANDU reactors are to be decommissioned in a staged fashion. NPD (a 25 MW(e) reactor), Douglas Point (a 220 MW(e) reactor) and Gentilly-1 (a 266 MW(e) reactor), all owned by AECL, are in a shutdown phase. The nuclear fuel waste has been stored and the containment buildings are intact. After a period of about 30 years, remaining structures will be dismantled, the site restored and the waste disposed of off-site.
For additional information on the Canadian radioactive waste management programme please see the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency's Radioactive Waste Management Programmes in OECD/NEA Member Countries.
Canada supports a diverse energy mix that includes the nuclear option. As well, it supports climate change initiatives. Significant emissions can be avoided through the construction of new nuclear reactors to meet increased domestic demand for electricity or to replace older CANDUs reaching the end of their lives. With growing concern about the reliability of the electricity supply, particularly in Ontario, issues of refurbishment and new reactor construction are under review by provincial governments and power utilities.
AECL is developing, with the government's support, its next-generation CANDU reactor, known as the ACR 700 MW. Safety enhancements and evolutionary design are expected to make it 40% cheaper to build than existing CANDU technology. Improvements include a smaller core, a 75% reduction in the quantity of heavy water, and the use of slightly enriched uranium fuel. Its modular design promises a faster assembly time than existing reactors.
The new design is undergoing pre-licensing assessment in the United States and Canada. New reactor builds would likely be of the ACR design presently under development by AECL for domestic and international markets. The ACR aims to be cost-competitive with other methods of power generation, including natural gas. International experts have ranked the ACR high for economics in comparison with other advanced reactor concepts. It also holds significant potential for use in Canada's oil sands recovery programme as well as in hydrogen production.
Canada, through its participation in the Generation IV International Forum, has committed to support the research, design and development of a fourth generation super-critical water-cooled reactor. AECL has the lead responsibility for Canada on this particular initiative.
For more than three decades, nuclear energy has contributed to avoid a significant amount of GHG emissions in Canada. Although there are a number of challenges currently facing the nuclear option, it is clear that nuclear is well positioned to continue to play an important role in meeting Canada's energy needs, as well as its air quality and climate change commitments.
As indicated earlier, nuclear energy is currently providing around 13 per cent of Canada's total electricity requirements (over 40 per cent in Ontario). This is a source of electricity, which is virtually GHG emissions free. Since the first nuclear reactor came on line in 1971, nuclear power has prevented the release of over 1 500 Megatonnes (Mt) of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, assuming that coal was the most likely alternative to nuclear over that period.
In 2002, Canada's use of nuclear energy precluded the release of CO2 emissions ranging between 40 to 70 Mt assuming that nuclear energy would have been displaced by natural gas and/or coal, respectively. If Canadian electric utilities had not chosen to build nuclear reactors and had built fossil-fueled plants instead, Canada's total GHG emissions gap would be 20-35% higher in 2010, than currently forecast.
For most of this decade, tangible prospects for any new nuclear power plants for Canada are uncertain, even in Ontario, based on the most recent electricity market outlooks. The return to service of laid-up nuclear units and the completion of gas-fired units already under construction in Ontario should ensure more than adequate electricity supplies. This is in line with the 10-year outlook recently published by the Ontario Independent Electricity Market Operator. Moreover, based on the most recent Levelized Unit Energy Cost (LUEC) published by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, the current market conditions and the fact that electricity generated from fossil fuel sources does not internalise all of its costs results in the nuclear option being a less economical option for new generating capacity.
However, by 2010, better opportunities for the deployment of new nuclear generating capacity in Canada are foreseen, as AECL is currently working on the development of ACR, and it aiming at reducing the capital cost to build a reactor by up to 40%. AECL foresees the potential for two ACRs in Canada by 2010.
While market prospects for new reactor sales in the near to medium-term are not too promising, the refurbishment of existing units, e.g., Point Lepreau and Gentilly 2 by 2008-09, seems more likely. Hence, the refurbishment of existing reactors would, at least in the medium-term, avoid the replacement of nuclear generating capacity with fossil-fuel based plants.
Over the next two decades, nuclear energy will have to face major challenges in order to be able to compete with other technologies for generating electricity in an open and liberalised market environment. These challenges include:
The industry is attempting to address those challenges by investing in the development of an advanced nuclear reactor and developing consortia to finance the refurbishment or the construction of new reactors.
This is an edited extract from the IAEA Country Nuclear Power Profile of Canada, compiled in 2003. The complete entry is available from the IAEA.
Appendix 1 - International & Multilateral Agreements
Nuclear facts and figures for OECD
countries
Number of nuclear units connected to the grid;
Nuclear electricity generation (net TWh); Nuclear percentage of total
electricity supply.
IEA Energy Statistics: Canada
Data available in the following areas: Coal, oil and gas use; Electricity production, supply and consumption; Heat production, supply and consumption;
Graphs of sectorial final consumption by source in 1973 and 2001.
The Decommissioning and Dismantling of Nuclear Facilities in OECD/NEA Member Countries: Canada
This compilation of national fact sheets is intended to serve as an authoritative source of reference information on individual NEA member countries. In this context, the term "nuclear facility" includes all facilities associated with the production of nuclear power, from mining of uranium, through fabrication of nuclear fuel, nuclear power plant operation, fuel reprocessing and waste management, including related R&D facilities, and research and demonstration reactors.
Nuclear Legislation in OECD Countries: Canada
Regulatory and Institutional Framework for Nuclear Activities
Each country profile in this valuable reference work provides a detailed review of a full range of nuclear law topics. These include: the general regulatory regime, including mining; radioactive substances and equipment; nuclear installations; trade in nuclear materials; radiation protection; radioactive waste management; non-proliferation and physical protection; transport; and nuclear third party liability.
Nuclear Energy Data
Nuclear Energy Data is the NEA’s annual compilation of essential statistics on electricity generation and nuclear power in OECD countries. The reader will have quick and easy reference to the status of and projected trends in total electricity generating capacity, nuclear generating capacity, and actual electricity production, as well as to supply and demand for nuclear fuel cycle services.
Last updated: 15 March 2006
Home - About Us - Work Areas - Data Bank - Publications - Press Room - List of acronyms - Search
